What do you think about Kierkegaard?
I've only read a brief 200 page introduction book about this guy, but he started making me think about religion in a different perspective. However, I've also grasped the guy was a bit crazy and out of touch with reality, as well as a major pessimistic loner towards the world, so it makes me wonder how much of his thoughts are really worth pondering.
Basically though, there's a part where he goes on to say that being religious can be better than being scientific for the reasoning that...um... religion brings on more meaning, in the end. As in, you can believe as much science and facts as you want, but what exactly will it offer us? I'm not saying I agree with him, but I want to know the views of those of you that have read about him and pondered the topic, that is, if you actually get what I'm trying to emphasize.
Say whatever you wish about the guy and his beliefs. It'd be nice to have a long thing going with tons of responses go around.
|
2
points
Let me preface this argument by saying this entire argument is subjective, and obviously what works for one person may not be right for another. This argument is based solely on my own anecdotal experience. I must say that being free from religion can give your life much more meaning than buying into any sort of unsubstantiated belief system. Humans have distinguished themselves from other species in their quest for knowledge in truth. It is this quest that led us out of dark ages of superstition, myth, fear and hatred into a more rationale world in which xenophobia is replaced with understanding and tolerance, fear of the unknown is replaced with increased understanding of the natural world in which we live, and an intellectual vitality that has lead to technological achievements that, to previous generations, would be indistinguishable from sorcery. Although there may be some appeal in the sense of security and the assurance that your actions are moral and just that comes with religion, I would argue that the quest to discover for oneself what is moral, through reasoned discourse with ones peers is more fulfilling then merely accepting something as the "Truth." Don't misunderstand me here; I believe that many important lessons can be gleamed from the various religious texts that exist in our world. Taking these lessons as literal unquestionable dogma however, is harmful in many ways, because it limits the creative intellectual discussions that have allowed our species to progress to the point where we are today. In addition, our life becomes more significant when we realize that this is the only one we have. It becomes harder to ignore injustice, if we know that there is no benevolent supernatural force that will right the wrongs that exist in some afterlife. Admittedly, when we consider man as the measure of all things, a great responsibility is put on us to take care of the world, and each other. We cannot rely on God to shelter us, or makeup for our mistakes, but instead we must always be working towards progress. This is what meaning I give to my own life as an atheist. To work to progress the world so that it is a better place for future generations, while at the same time enjoying the limited time I have on this world with my friends and family. Side: Life has more meaning without religion
Very well said soccer, but far too gentle. Kierkegaard is wrong if your synopsis, "religion brings on more meaning, in the end. As in, you can believe as much science and facts as you want, but what exactly will it offer us?" is remotely accurate. Religion can only possibly bring on more meaning in the end if it is right. As there are thousands of different religions, each claiming the others are wrong, and even those in their respective religions disagree with eachother, and are often not true to their religion anyway, the chances of anyone getting anymore meaning "in the end" from a religion than anyone else is a stretch. Meanwhile we see the end result of science all around us, and it's measurably evident that the more we "believe in science and fact," the more we really do find more "meaning in the end." I would not only say that Kierkegaard is wrong, I would say that the exact opposite of what he says is true. Side: Life has more meaning without religion
Since meaning in the logical sense doesn't exist, this would mean that meaning is subjective. So, if someone is spiritual or religious, or something like that, they would technically have meaning because they are creating that meaning. Even though it isn't real, to them it is. While to the person who says that it's all bullshit will have no meaning in neither the logical nor the subjective sense. This is why Atheists can only find meaning through philosophy and science combined. Science itself is necessary to explain how, but philosophy is necessary to explain why... or at least try to find out if there's a why in the first place. That's the closest to meaning you can go for. Side: Philosophy with Science can beat that
He's right in that religion brings more meaning into your life. But, you'd have to REALLY believe in it in the first place. You can't convince someone like me or any other Atheist/Agnostic on this site that religion is right. In reality, if you think philosophically, you can put the idea that there MIGHT be meaning in this Universe. But as an Agnostic, I'm not sure at all. It could be possible, but I don't know. That is where science can come in to help. Science is Knowledge (its actual definition). You won't be able to figure out the meaning of life and the Universe if you don't have knowledge over it first. Side: Philosophy with Science can beat that
|
